Tag Archives: U.S Constitution

2010/05/25

U.S. Attempts To Block Constitutional Challenge to States’ Challenge of Health Care Reform Law

By Bill Golden
JeffersonConservative.com

The Obama administration has now adopted a strategy of trying to preempt court consideration of the constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Act by arguing that states have no legal basis or standing to challenge the Health Care Reform Act.

A secondary Obama administration argument is that Congress has the power to regulate interstate trade and that authority is enough by itself to make the measure constitutional.

The Obama administration challenge is officially being made by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, now known as ‘Virginia v. Sebelius‘.

Virginia is being made the test case to see if the federal strategy will work. Virginia must respond by June 7th to the federal challenge.

Federal attorneys argue that individuals, not the state, are affected by the requirement to buy health insurance, meaning that the state has no standing to sue over the issue.

CHALLENGE: The Health Care Reform Act forces both individuals to buy something that they did not previously have to (5th Amendment protection – you do not lose rights just because they are not specifically listed in the Constitution; in this case you and I have a right to not buy health care insurance) and the new law forces states to increase their financial support and thus to increase taxes for delivery of medical services (health care high risk pools, medicare, etc.).

Actions by the federal government that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner violate the due process of the fifth amendment. “Discrimination” in this sense is that the Health Care Reform Act forces some individuals, but not others,  to purchase health insurance.

A counter argument is that all Americans are required to purchase health insurance, but receive an exemption if they can prove that they purchased a policy personally or through their employer.

A reasoned position by Virginia is that it is representing the collective rights of its citizens in both cases, by protecting both their individual rights and the phantom requirement to increase state taxes in order to provide additional non-federally funded medical services.

Learn more by googling: Virginia v. Sebelius and Fifth Amendment Due Process

Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

‘No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.’

Leave a Comment

Filed under Health Care, U.S. Constitution

Tagged as , , , , , ,

2010/05/15

Arizona – If You Do Nothing Then ‘We The People’ Have The Right To Do Something

by Bill Golden
aka JeffersonConservative.com

Arizona – lots of talk of boycott of Arizona for its new law requiring identification for those stopped by police for some violation of the law and suspected of being a non-U.S. citizen.

Yet out of those same mouths there seems to be no forthcoming suggestions about how to prevent the illegal alien problem to begin with. No talk of securing the borders.

Is citizenship itself racist? One person wrote me and said that all citizenship laws are racist. They said that people have been migrating throughout the Americas for 30,000 years. Technically that may be true. But once they stopped migrating they created boundaries. What I call a citizen someone else calls a tribal member.

Take the time to do some quick research and you will find over 400 documented inter-tribal wars between native American tribes over their own boundaries just since the arrival of settlers at Jamestown. The Aztec and the Mayan also had rather draconian methods of dealing with out-of-season migrations further to our south. No, I do not think migration is a natural reason for doing nothing.

Is it legal? Any number of folks have suggested that Arizona’s new law is unconstitutional or violates U.S. law. Sorry. No. In fact, Arizona must submit any law for prior review to the U.S. Department of Justice if it potentially affects the 14th and 15th amendment rights of citizens because Arizona is under restrictions imposed by the 1965 Voting Rights Act — which is meant to strengthen and to protect the rights of minorities. Arizona did due diligence and has a Washington DC Department of Justice review and approval ‘yes you can’ certificate in hand.

Arizona’s Impact on America: A week or two ago there were huge rallies to show Arizona that its fellow American citizens and the Latino/Chicano/Hispanic community weren’t happy with its new law. Don’t blink. Many of the rallies were massive. Don’t blink. Many of the rallies worked hard to paint Arizona as racist and repressive. Don’t blink. The hypocrisy was so huge that national support for Arizona’s new law has surged from 51% to now 64% of Americans support Arizona the state and Arizona’s new law — per an MSNBC/WSJ poll just this week.

So when all is said and done, nothing has been done by Washington DC to fix Arizona’s borders or to address its concerns. Arizona is not a province. Arizona is a state — and ‘state’ has meaning. Arizona has its own ‘We the People’ and they have made a decision.

Want to boycott Arizona? Fine. Free choice is yours.

Want to poke fun at Arizona? Go ahead. Enjoy your 1st Amendment rights. But beware, Arizona’s spirit is contagious and a number of other states have ‘We the People’ too — and a number of states are considering Arizona-like laws to include CO, GA, OH, OK, MD, MI, MS, SC, TX, UT.

You can fix a problem, or you can ignore it and someone will eventually fix it to their own liking. When they do then it really is too late for you to care.

Leave a Comment

Filed under American History, Arizona, Polls

Tagged as , , , , ,

2010/04/28

Arizona and the Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

by Bill Golden
JeffersonConservatives.com and Bill4DogCatcher.com

A permanent resident alien is entitled to constitutional protection, and specifically the protection of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

For all Americans, knowledge of the U.S. Constitution is important — probable cause, reasonable suspicion, search and seizure all have highly defined meanings.

Below are two important constitutional challenges that are relevant to Arizona’s recently passed law SB1070:

Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32-4 (1982):
‘[O]nce an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop the ties that go with permanent residence, his constitutional status changes accordingly.’ Bottomline: Legal aliens (immigrants) have full protection of the U.S. Constitution.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 392 U.S. 1 (1968):
As for how reasonable suspicion plays a role in checking someone’s identification, the courts acknowledges that this is a tricky area of law. However, the bottom line is that the police are ultimately held to an objective justification reviewable by the courts.

“It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs “seizures” of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the station house and prosecution for crime – “arrests” in traditional terminology. It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has “seized” that person. … This Court has held in [392 U.S. 1, 18] the past that a search which is reasonable at its inception may violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of its intolerable intensity and scope. … The scheme of the Fourth Amendment becomes meaningful only when it is assured that at some point the conduct of those charged with enforcing the laws can be subjected to the more detached, neutral scrutiny of a judge who must evaluate the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure in light of the particular circumstances. And in making that assessment it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard: would the facts [392 U.S. 1, 22] available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search “warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief” that the action taken was appropriate?”

The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution was added as part of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. It deals with protecting people from the searching of their homes and private property without properly executed search warrants.

The 4th Amendment reads like this:

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The 4th Amendment requires that in order for a government official, such as a police officer, to search a person’s home, business, papers, bank accounts, computer or other personal items, in most cases, he must obtain a search warrant signed by the proper authority, which usually means by a judge.

In order for a warrant to be issued, someone must affirm to the judge that he has a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that by searching the premises of a particular location, he believes he will find evidence that will verify the crime. The person submitting this information to the judge is usually a police officer. The police officer does not have to be correct in his assumption, he just has to have a reasonable belief that searching someone’s private property will yield evidence of the crime.

The judge then reviews the information and if he also believes that the information the officer has submitted shows probable cause, he will issue the warrant. In order for the warrant to be good, it must identify the place and the particular items or persons that are to be seized if they are found. A warrant is not a general order that can be used to search for anything, anywhere the officer wants. It is very specific about what is being looked for and where the officer can look for it.

Learn more about Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Learn more about the Fourth Amendment via Google

Leave a Comment

Filed under U.S. Constitution

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

2010/04/03

Thomas Jefferson As Conservative Role Model

Thomas Jefferson was more than a founding father. He was philosopher, scientist, observer, academic, scholar, and much, much more.

Thomas Jefferson, who gave us the first ten amendments of the U.S Constitution, firmly believed in republican democracy.

Here is what Thomas Jefferson was not: dogmatic. He showed respect to those with whom he disagreed.

To honor Thomas Jefferson’s legacy, Bill4DogCatcher.com new’s website ConservativesUSA.com is being renamed JeffersonConservative.com.

As to what Thomas Jefferson believed, and as to how we believe it should guide modern American conservatives, we will let Thomas Jefferson speak for himself:

“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there is one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” –Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787.

“In every country where man is free to think and to speak, differences of opinion will arise from difference of perception, and the imperfection of reason; but these differences when permitted, as in this happy country, to purify themselves by free discussion, are but as passing clouds overspreading our land transiently and leaving our horizon more bright and serene.” –Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801.

“Truth and reason are eternal. They have prevailed. And they will eternally prevail; however, in times and places they may be overborne for a while by violence, military, civil, or ecclesiastical.” –Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Knox, 1810.

“Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth; and I am sure…we both value too much the freedom of opinion sanctioned by our Constitution, not to cherish its exercise even where in opposition to ourselves.” –Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.

Leave a Comment

Filed under American History

Tagged as , , , , ,